as they wish to be seen.” I’m not sure whether Mrs. Clintonrnwas saing that we should perceive others in the way we ourselvesrnwish to be perceived, or that we should perceive others inrnthe way they themselves wish to be perceived; but either wav, itrnis a perversion of the Golden Rule into nothing less thanrnthought control.rnThis idea—that we have a right to be seen as we want to bernseen—runs through Hillary Clinton’s public commentary likernan emotional itch, and it doesn’t take much to figure out why.rnShe often expresses frustration verging on resentment over thernreality that her view of herself is, well, just one woman’s opinionrn(not counting Grandma, of course). In her first newspaperrncolumn, she wrote, “it is hard even for me to recognize thernHillary Clinton that other people see.” She might havernchanged “even for me” to “especially for me,” as she obviouslyrnconsiders the mere fact of dissenting opinions to be a transgression.rnIt has become clear over the past three years that HillaryrnClinton’s fixation on definition and redefinition is rooted in arnmessy mix of personal entitlement and political expediency.rnDefinitions determine rights, and rights result in control.rnHence it no doubt seems to her only fair to conclude that itrnought to be a matter of public decency that she be understood,rnand a matter of public policy that she define understanding.rnThe only thing left out of this neat little noose of circular thinkingrnis the incidental issue of what the rest of us get to do.rnMary McGrory and other members of the Hillary Fan Clubrninsult the public and do women a disservice when they blamernresistance to Hillary Clinton on “changing roles,” “culturalrntransition,” or, worst of all, sexism. Hillary Clinton is not unpopularrnbecause Americans dislike “strong women”; she is unpopularrnbecause she is an imitation of a strong woman.rnDressed in the cheesy robes of derivative status, waving therndinky scepter of power-by-proximit’, she stands before a freerncountry and tells people what they should do. She insists onrncontrolling the rules of debate and the definition of terms.rnThen she reproaches her audience for dimness—or, when she’srnreally cranked up, for “cynicism”—when they conclude thatrnher behavior is arrogant and her ideas nonsensical. She isn’t arnvictim of sexism. She’s an illustration of psychological denial.rnWHiat strikes me first and most about both Clintons is theirrnfailure at personal collectedness, their absence of psychic composure.rnAll effort shows, always. Hillary Clinton has taken on,rnin sweaty liberal fashion, no less a task than the redefinition ofrnhuman nature, and has done it for no greater reason than to increasernher comfort level in the world. And all she needs in returnrnfor her efforts is (back to Ms. McGrory) “a little adulation.”rnFrom a behavioral as well as philosophical standpoint,rnthis is an unattractive spectacle. From a political perspective,rnhowever, it is the equivalent of poking the electorate in the eye,rnthen blaming the wounded for screaming ouch. Their angerrntwice justified, their outrage compounded, they dare you tornpoke them again. And before you know it, they go into a votingrnbooth and say, “Redefine this.” Better brace yourself.rnGrandma.rnRonda 1994rnby Gloria WhelanrnThe rocky hills furbished with rosemaryrnand false jasmine,rnthe shimmering ‘illage white hotrnto the touch,rnthe shepherd’s cellular phone, and his goatsrntrotting beside him,rnthe women in black, a cortege of shadowsrndarkening the streets,rnthe church once a mosque, the Mater Dolorosarnthe Wounds of the Christ,rnthe room in the bullring with steel hooksrnfor the slaughtered toros,rnthe news drifting in with the swallowsrnat dawn and at dusk,rna man killed by terrorists in Barcelona, another manrnmurdered in Madrid,rnthe deaths that start in the cities and hurryrnover the hills to the town.rn18/CHRONICLESrnrnrn